Informed choice on Pap smear still limited by lack of knowledge on the meaning of false-positive or false-negative test results

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 214-218

  Korfage, Ida J ^a   van Ballegooijen, Marjolein ^a   Wauben, Brendy ^b,c   Habbema, J Dik F ^a   Essink Bot, Marie Louise ^a,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Maastricht UMC+ Comprehensive Cancer Centre   (Netherlands)

^c National Cervical Cancer Screening Program (Bevolkingsonderzoek Zuid)   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Attitude to health; Cervix cancer; Informed decision making; Questionnaires; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NETHERLANDS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; QUESTIONNAIRES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; WOMEN;

EID: 80053065747     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.014     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Barratt A., Irwig L., Glasziou P., Cumming R.G., Raffle A., Hicks N., et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. XVII. How to use guidelines and recommendations about screening. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. J Amer Med Assoc 1999, 281:2029-2034.
2. Jepson R.G., Hewison J., Thompson A., Weller D. Patient perspectives on information and choice in cancer screening: a qualitative study in the UK. Soc Sci Med 2007, 65:890-899.
3. de Kok I.M., van Ballegooijen M., Habbema J.D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101:1083-1092.
4. Statistics Netherlands. Causes of death; main primary causes. Available from: 2010 [November 2010]. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/%3FDM=SLEN%26PA7052eng%26D1=8-28%26D2=0%26D3=a%26D4=37%26LA=EN%26VW=T.
5. Casparie M., Tiebosch A.T., Burger G., Blauwgeers H., van de Pol A., van Krieken J.H., et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 2007, 29:19-24.
6. Raffle A.E. Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?. Health Expect 2001, 4:92-98.
7. Marteau T.M., Kinmonth A.L. Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?. Brit Med J 2002, 325:78-80.
8. Minister of Health. Letter about screening [Kaderbrief screening]. The Hague; 2008. Contract No.: PG/ZP 2.847.440.
9. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. London; 1998.
10. Osterlie W., Solbjor M., Skolbekken J.A., Hofvind S., Saetnan A.R., Forsmo S. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics 2008, 34:e5.
11. Marteau T.M., Dormandy E., Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001, 4:99-108.
12. Rebolj M., van Ballegooijen M., Berkers L.M., Habbema D. Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2007, 120:806-812.
13. Wald N. Information leaflets in medical screening. J Med Screen 2006, 13:109.
14. van den Bergh K.A., Essink-Bot M.L., van Klaveren R.J., de Koning H.J. Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial on CT screening for lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2009, 34:711-720.
15. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50:179-211.
16. Ware J.E., Snow K.K., Kosinski M., Gandek B.G. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide 1993, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.
17. van den Berg M., Timmermans D.R., Ten Kate L.P., van Vugt J.M., van der Wal G. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?. Genet Med 2005, 7:332-338.
18. Johnson R., Wichern D. Applied multivariate statistical analysis 1992, Prentice-Hall Int. Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. third ed.
19. Irwig L., McCaffery K., Salkeld G., Bossuyt P. Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation. Brit Med J 2006, 332:1148-1150.
20. van Rijn A.F., van Rossum L.G., Deutekom M., Laheij R.J., Bossuyt P.M., Fockens P., et al. Getting adequate information across to colorectal cancer screening subjects can be difficult. J Med Screen 2008, 15:149-152.
21. Korfage I.J., van Ballegooijen M., Huveneers H., Essink-Bot M.L. Anxiety and borderline PAP smear results. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46:134-141.
22. Marteau T.M., Senior V., Sasieni P. Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study. Brit Med J 2001, 322:526-528.
23. Green J.M., Hewison J., Bekker H.L., Bryant L.D., Cuckle H.S. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8. iii, ix-x,1-109.